Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Stop Killing Games update says EU petition advances

videocardz.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 88 posts

Re: Stop Killing Games update says EU petition advances

#41

Post by bsjaux628 »

m4rtink wrote: post #33
bsjaux628 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What SKG movement want, in short terms, is that game developers/publishers of live service games and online only games be forced, once the games is no longer supported, to provide tools, software, executables to the community to keep the game going. They are using the banner of consumer protection and a public EU initiative to force the EU politicians to debate and come up with a solution. The drama mostly stems from…

I think someone with his perspective might be actually a perfect head of the movement. Most people who play games are not programmers & games are becoming a big part of modern culture. Why should people playing (and paying !) for games really care what bad technical or business decisions have the publishers done when they see part of their culture being killed to save a buck ? A lot of other important problems have b…

In a three way chat between the movement, politicians and the game industry, you need to know the technical details to rebuke the arguments and support your claims.

Also, the technical decisions are not just about saving a buck but getting the game shipped. If my game is about growing vegetables and I want to let the player drive to the state farm, but I don't want to spend time (and money) building my own physics engine for driving, I grab a solution off the shelve with their license and go back to the core of my game, this same thing is repeat for many other things like authentication, anti-cheat, networking, etc

Re: Stop Killing Games update says EU petition advances

#42

Post by patmorgan23 »

SunshineTheCat wrote: post #29

I in no way mean this to be rude, but I think a big part of why the EU isn't in the same galaxy as the US in the realm of business in general, is in some part, the knee jerk reaction to turn to the government to make products and services better. Governments cannot make you an alternative, they can only make something that already exists, different (usually worse). I have zero interest in creating in the gaming space…

Maybe, I think a bigger reason is that Europe doesn't have near the level of regulatory harmonization that the US has. There are tons of policy areas where member states just do whatever they want, in pretty important areas. Like the US has a single bankruptcy code, and state commercial codes are all pretty close to the UCC, that's not the case in Europe.

The current EU commission president is pushing pretty hard to create more harmonization to make it easier for companies and investors to operate across Europe.

Re: Stop Killing Games update says EU petition advances

#43

Post by OkayPhysicist »

petcat wrote: post #34
TimFogarty wrote: post #28

An interesting question about Stop Killing Games is if this should apply to software more broadly. If a company shuts down should they open source their product so people can continue using it? There isn't as strong an argument for this since most software is structured like a SaaS rather than a one time purchase. But it's considerate when companies do this, e.g. Facebook open sourcing Parse Server was better than ou…

> If a company shuts down should they open source their product so people can continue using it? The question is who is now responsible for the software? Who can the government compel to open source it? There is no more legal entity behind the software. Maybe the last employee just takes the source code home on their laptop and that's it. How is a government forcing a private entity (especially a defunkt one) to rele…

When a company shuts down, somebody becomes the new owner of their stuff, including their intellectual property. Most of the time it's whoever the company was in debt to. Now that company can choose to either host the software, or release it.

Re: Stop Killing Games update says EU petition advances

#44

Post by wvenable »

imiric wrote: post #38

I'm not sure how I feel about SKG. On one hand: sure, a product you buy should be expected to work for more than a couple of years. This gets fuzzy with modern service subscription models, licensing terms, etc., but in general, planned obsolescence shouldn't exist in digital products any more than in physical ones. On the other, though, the companies that produce games that stop working are not worth supporting. Thei…

> On the other, though, the companies that produce games that stop working are not worth supporting.

But how can you make an informed purchasing decision based on something that hasn't happened yet? What about new studios?

Re: Stop Killing Games update says EU petition advances

#45

Post by [deleted] »

maccard wrote: post #35
cousin_it wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not "demanding others make things for you". It's demanding they don't remotely disable the thing you already bought. Imagine you buy a car, then a few years later the company remotely disables it because they're selling a newer model. Without giving you the money back of course. That's what's happening with games. And not just multiplayer: tons of single player games have been killed this way. The whole SKG thin…

Why is this only targeted at games and not mobile apps, app subscriptions or websites. This pretty much removes the ability to use _any_ commercial software without a custom license which is just insanity. No using any AWS services in case the pull the rug on you. You might argue “but you can X and you can Y”, and that’s true, but again why is this only a problem for games?

[deleted]

Re: Stop Killing Games update says EU petition advances

#46

Post by imiric »

gchamonlive wrote: post #31
imiric wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with most of what you said, but describing video games as nothing more than toys does a disservice to the medium. Yes, video games can be educational and entertaining, just like real world toys, but they can also be artistic and communicate stories. They're the most expressive and engaging storytelling device we have ever invented. Not all games are all of these things, and there's nothing wrong with games th…

> Yes, video games can be educational and entertaining, just like real world toys, but they can also be artistic and communicate stories. Storytelling and art isn't exclusive to video games though. Board games for instance have tons of storytelling and are very rich in art. They are, however nothing more than toys, and they don't need to be. That's my whole point. Being "just a toy" is pejorative only in the industri…

I suppose it's a matter of semantics and perspective. The definition of "toy" seems too narrow to me to properly encompass the complexities of board and video games. A ball is a toy, but clearly it's unable to provide the same experience as a board or video game. At a certain point these experiences can be deeply engaging in ways that simpler toys can't provide. Not necessarily better, but certainly different. Maybe it has to do with the amount of play rules, engaged senses, or brain activity... I'm not sure. But at some point a toy stops being a toy to me. :)

Though I do agree with your point. Games/toys are unfairly criticized in our society.

Re: Stop Killing Games update says EU petition advances

#47

Post by imiric »

wvenable wrote: post #44
imiric wrote: post #38

I'm not sure how I feel about SKG. On one hand: sure, a product you buy should be expected to work for more than a couple of years. This gets fuzzy with modern service subscription models, licensing terms, etc., but in general, planned obsolescence shouldn't exist in digital products any more than in physical ones. On the other, though, the companies that produce games that stop working are not worth supporting. Thei…

> On the other, though, the companies that produce games that stop working are not worth supporting. But how can you make an informed purchasing decision based on something that hasn't happened yet? What about new studios?

You don't pre-order, and you wait for reviews. But usually this is a problem of repeat offenders. Fool me once...

Nowadays with shovelware and AI slop, new studios can also release garbage, but you don't have to play on day 1. At some point you start trusting certain studios and publishers, which makes things a bit easier.

Trust is difficult to earn, but easy to lose. The problem is that many people keep trusting consumer-hostile companies even after they screw them over.

Re: Stop Killing Games update says EU petition advances

#48

Post by captainbland »

SunshineTheCat wrote: post #29

I in no way mean this to be rude, but I think a big part of why the EU isn't in the same galaxy as the US in the realm of business in general, is in some part, the knee jerk reaction to turn to the government to make products and services better. Governments cannot make you an alternative, they can only make something that already exists, different (usually worse). I have zero interest in creating in the gaming space…

Strictly speaking governments can and do create new things, e.g. NASA.

Re: Stop Killing Games update says EU petition advances

#49

Post by caranti »

lopatin wrote: post #16

Can someone please ELI5? I've heard much about it but still, with all the drama, I still don't get it. SKG is an initiative that will force game publishers to keep a game online, provided that people have paid for it, and the publisher is not bankrupt? Is that right? What does it have to do with democracy?

Some good responses here already. One angle that's not been mentioned yet is informed consent at the time of purchase.

When "buying" not "renting" there is presently no information for the consumer to make an informed choice about what they are purchasing when it comes to a live service game because no end-of-service date is available at the time of making the purchasing decision.

This is in large part why the end of The Crew was problematic for many people.

Had the service end of life been advertised at the point of purchase the consumer could have knowingly "purchased" a time-limited product, or not, but the decision would have been informed.

All this stuff about end-of-life plans, releasing self-hosted servers, patching out online-only stuff and leaving behind an offline-only game, etc, is great, but it's only one of the possible remedies that SKG have been discussing for the last couple of years.

Another perfectly feasible one is not to dress up a time-limited entitlement to participate in a live service as the same thing as an "own forever" product at the point of purchase.

Post reply on HN